In its SEC filing last week, Apple revealed
a multitude of legal nags it was dealing with, most notable being that iPod-iTunes class action lawsuit, which brings with it some hefty antitrust allegations. Tucker vs. Apple Computer, which was originally filed on July 21st, alleges that "Apple has engaged in tying and monopolizing behavior, placing unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice and restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets." It also claims that by removing WMA functionality from those Portal Player chips is tantamount to "crippleware," with Apple's insistence on AAC being an "illegal tie in violation of antitrust laws." Some hefty claims, to which Apple responded in its request for dismissal on November 6 that "imposing a duty of interoperability would inhibit the very innovation and technological advances that the antitrust laws are designed to promote." US District Judge James put the kibosh on any dismissal nonsense, saying "the existence of valid business reasons in antitrust cases is generally a question of fact not appropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage." Hard to say how this all will go down when the case continues at a "case management conference" on January 22nd, and the very fact of DRM-free CD rips working quite harmoniously with the iPod seem to put the case in a different light than those Microsoft antitrust woes of yore, but we'll be sure keeping an eye on this one all the same.
posted January 4th 2007 11:06AM
It is amazing with all the outcry about HD formats that this has not been a bigger issue earlier.
Apple and Microsoft's DRM are far too restricting. I've been a longtime customer of Napster (the legal one), and just recently installed itunes(my son has an ipod). i tunes definitely appears to be more restrictive on all my music content, and treats even the unprotected content as if it is DRM'd. Making compatibility between my mp3 collection and itunes a hassle.
Why are we not calling for one inter-operable DRM solution? I do not illegally share my music,but I find myself burning and ripping music to allow myself full use of the music I paid for. I don't see any good reason why I have more options to use a store bought CD than a file i purchased online.
Silly
http://www.vequalsir.com
Off topic, I know, but you might look into QTFairUse6 for decrypting your music. It does lossless decryption. :D
http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1553
everyone just seems to forget that if you buy the cd and put it on your computer, there's no worrying about DRM.
plus you get this nifty little booklet that tells you tidbits about the band.
I wish that record companies would allow a trial period of selling drm free 192kbps MP3s for say a month or so, and then compare numbers sold to those sold before. I bet they'd be surprised...
Until I get drm free music in a format that's UNIVERSALLY playable, at a quality that I can choo...oh wait *goes back to buying CDs*
"so - why aren't they protesting the fact that WMA is a closed system and is tied to Windows and requires a microsoft license to play properly, while AAC is open source and you can get any number of free and opensource players for AAC?
dumbass French people. Never underestimate the stupidity of a people that should, by all rights, be speaking German."
I want you to try to put an Itunes bought song on any other mp3 player other than an Ipod. Try it even on the ones that support ACC. Once you try that you will see what their point is.
Hey night, no one is forcing you to buy from iTunes. Even if you have an iPod, you can buy your music elsewhere.
If there is no other place to buy music, then you can argue that iTunes and Fairplay DRM make up a monopoly.
But there are other stores. So the main reason people want Fairplay opened up is because all those other stores are crap and nobody wants to buy from them and you can't sue them for incompetence so then just sue Apple instead.
If you are going to sue Apple for selling music that only plays on iPods, then you have to sue HP for selling ink that only works on an HP printer. Or sue Microsoft for selling an Office suite that only works on Windows.
Okay ill take the iTunes store bought mp4.... burn it to disc.. rip it into my iTunes as an mp3 and voila! In iTunes you go to the preferences menu.. then to Advanced...Then to Importing.. and then change your import setting from AAC Encoder to MP3 Encoder. And from then on any importing you do will be in MP3 format. OMG isnt that hard?!?!?!
People need learn how to use software.
This 'woah is me' attitude about DRM music is rather old and annoying. Don't buy from iTunes if you can't handle the DRMs! Buy CDs, buy MP3s at other places, and if you want to keep your stuff organized with your iPod, use iTunes. It doesn't restrict any use of your MP3s (Thomas), it just puts them all in one place. The only restrictions you might see is if you want to give other people your music off of your iPod, in which I've been using Podworks for over a year no problem. Windows is the issue here, they stopped anyone from using WMA even when Apple made iTunes availible on PC! I don't see any Zune software for the Apple (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Oh, and with anything bought on iTunes, you can rip a damn CD and reimport it DRM free. Granted you might lose some quality which I'm usually a stickler on, but if you set a higher res on the MP3 imports, it'll make up for that. Oh and all those MP3s should work fine with any other music app. Apple and many other companies did their best about DRM, giving lots of options, but the fact is these aren't Apple's problems, it's the labels' issues.
If you knew how to read you would know this one is not about the french - hell, you might even find it useful for those little drm-less things we call books.
Sometimes, I'd just like to simply kick some of those freedom asses once for all, french or american style.
zune can play aac and wma format as well as other formats
ipod only plays wma
its amazing, apple fanboys cry about microsoft monopoly and always play that card, no here is apple with the same monopoly as microsoft but they can do no wrong
so ipod? when will you be playing nice like zune and allow wma format?
sorry bad post
ipod only plays aac
zune plays aac and wma
mcpat,
You do not have all the facts on all the formats the ipod plays. This list is taken from Apple's website:
Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF and WAV
Here is the url. http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html
Please check your facts before posting.
The difference here is that apple is the big monopoly here. Why do u think apple can get away with things in mac osx that windows cant in windows vista and xp?
also what stopping apple from joining that play for sure group. im guessing its not microsoft.
"ipod only plays aac
zune plays aac and wma"
Um, no.
From Apple's product specs for the current iPod() :
"Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF and WAV"
(These are also valid for the current Nano. The current Shuffle does not play Apple Lossless - however, for a 1 gig item, lossless files are kind of counterproductive.)
Checking the MS page for the Zune's format specs (), we find the following :
"Audio - Windows Media Audio Standard (.wma) - up to 320 Kbps, CBR and VBR, up to 48-kHz sample rate
MP3 (.mp3) - up to 320 Kbps, CBR and VBR, up to 48-kHz sample rate
AAC (.mp4, .m4a, .m4b, .mov) - up to 320 Kbps, Low Complexity (LC), up to 48-kHz sample rate"
Let's see : the Zune appears not to support uncompressed audio or one of the biggest formats out there for audiobooks.
(On the one hand, I'd note that it doesn't play a non-lossy compression scheme at all. Then again, on the other hand, the iPod's lossless scheme is an internal-to-the-company file format. And then on the gripping hand, the Zune's file-format-uber-alles is an internal-to-the-company file format. So no freebies for MS on that point.)
Looks like Apple casts a wider net of playability than MS's product does. I assume you'd like to change your statement?
I laugh so hard at those who apologize for DRM. It's akin to to saying, "I like bee stings! We need more bee stings! Hey! Lets charge for bee stings!"
Mcepat:
What the heck are you smoking? iPod doesn't play WMA. It does play:
Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF and WAV
Why should Apple send money to Microsoft to license WMA given the utter lack of support for the Mac platform from Microsoft for other windows media formats?
"the very fact of DRM-free CD rips working quite harmoniously with the iPod seem to put the case in a different light than those Microsoft antitrust woes of yore"
Really? If my memory serves me correctly those "Microsoft antitrust woes" were about bundled software (web browsers, media players) disadvantaging the competition. Other software wasn't "shut out" or anything, it just wasn't shipped by default.
Here Apple has gone a step further by actively disallowing other manufacturers to either sell music directly to the ipod (the only protected files it can play are in Apple's closed version of AAC), to allow pre-existing formats from other manufacturers (such as wma) to play on the iPod, or, conversely, to allow other players to use files from the iTunes music store (by keeping the format closed).
Now, of course, if you rip to CD and/or convert all your music to an unprotected format such as MP3 you can get around all these restrictions. But it does seem to be rather anticompetitive that they exist in the first place.
treetrunk, you're totally clueless
> Here Apple has gone a step further by actively disallowing other manufacturers to either sell music directly to the ipod (the only protected files it can play are in Apple's closed version of AAC)
1. Apple doesn't have to pay Microsoft for Janus DRM licensing fees if it doesn't want to!!! There's no law that forces companies to pay licensing fees to competition!!!
2. Any store can sell music for an iPod. But not using Janus DRM (WMA). See www.emusic.com (very legal online music store)
> to allow pre-existing formats from other manufacturers (such as wma) to play on the iPod,
Again, Apple doesn't have to license technology from Microsoft if they don't want to!!! For your information, even WMA without DRM is a technology that requires licensing. See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx
> or, conversely, to allow other players to use files from the iTunes music store (by keeping the format closed).
For your information, AAC wasn't invented by Apple. And more, Fairplay DRM technology is as closed as Microsoft's Janus DRM technology. Meaning that it is proprietary technology, licenseable to whoever is willing to pay the license fee. Motorola is one example!
>Now, of course, if you rip to CD and/or convert all your music to an unprotected format such as MP3 you can get around all these restrictions.
More, if you buy music from iTunes and you decide you want to use Creative Zen player, you simply burn your music and rip it again in the unprotected format of your wish. Even more, when you rip music from CDs using iTunes, the program doesn't add any DRM protection to your files.
Who's more monopolistic? Apple, Microsoft or Sony?
> But it does seem to be rather anticompetitive that they exist in the first place.
Exist what? CDs? MP3s?
As soon as a (completely) legit online music store adopts the allofmp3.com model (not necessarily as dirt cheap), allowing you to choose exactly what format you want, and what quality, they will win. Overnight. So many people who currently piss about with torrents and everything else to find a particular album at good quality would much prefer to just hit a button and have it all downloaded for a few dollars. And then the music industry would be seeing $$ from people who they would usually see nothing from, and the people who download legally already would probably be tempted to spend more than they already do. And it wouldn't matter that they have no DRM, because as long as CDs exist in this world, there will be DRMless rips to torrrent anyway. So the hardcore pirates still pay zilch, the casual pirates spend a few $$ and the legit buyers buy more. But this would make too much sense for the labels, hence our current situation....
If ipods have to support WMA then zunes and everything else should support itunes... HAHAHAHAHAH
tundraboy, every argument you make can be turned around and said about the MS lawsuits. No one was forced to use anything made by MS and alternatives were available. I worked for a company that courted MS for a year and literally had a champagne party the day we cut the deal with them, then 3 years later those same celebrating execs said they were forced into the very deal they wrote. Apple, welcome to greater than 2% marketshare.
tundraboy, one argument that is factually wrong is MS Office which is sold for Macs also.
http://hymn-project.org/ problem solved.
careful with this HYMM thing, read the site about iTunes 6, and make backups of your purchases. Don't want anyone to shoot their eye out!
And yes, there are many solutions to the iTunes store via other music stores. Most are not so great, but some are probably fine like Emusic (even though it's mostly small labels).
@McGurk
I never said that Zune could play ITUNES, I simply stated that Zune can play AAC, and no I did not get this info from apple.com I got it from zune.net
I was trying to point out that Microsoft on the zune at least supports microsoft open format and apple open format, apple even closes the open format hole and decides not to support wma, but that is business as usual of the king of closed locked systems, microsoft is taking a similiar tak with zune but only because apple did the best job of being the best at being closed
Audio
Windows Media® Audio Standard (.wma): Up to 320 Kbps, CBR and VBR, up to 48-kHz sample rate
MP3 (.mp3): Up to 320 Kbps, CBR and VBR, up to 48-kHz sample rate
AAC (.mp4, .m4a, .m4b, .mov): Up to 320 Kbps, Low Complexity (LC), up to 48-kHz sample rate
oh and zune supports .mov as well, how come ipod does not support wmv?
Ok, so Apple opens up AAC for everyone. What next? RIAA will be suing Apple's butt for "not protecting" RIAA's intellectual property.
Seriously, this is stupid. Want to play WMA? Find a damn file converter. WMA sucks anyway, so does WMV.
Everyone is complaining about this, then don't buy a damn iPod OR (even smarter) buy REAL CDs! Yeah, they are a couple bucks more in a store, but they are better quality AND DRM free.
I remember the days when MP3s weren't quite standard yet. There were a few competing formats and I had to constantly find a new converting program.
Shit is so much easier now and people start complaining.
Bring back the old days when few people knew anything about digital music files! People weren't bitching at each other and were mostly helpful in getting one format to work with such and such player.
Firstly, that wouldn't happen. "Opening up" AAC wouldn't mean giving away the key, it'd be licensing other companies to use it in the same way as Apple.
Secondly, you've missed the point. Yes, of course you as an individual can convert your files, "not buy a damn iPod" or choose to buy "real cds", but the point is that FROM ANOTHER COMPANIES PERSPECTIVE it is ANTICOMPETITIVE that this is the case. Apple is deliberately trying to shut out the competition - they refuse to play others formats (WMA), and won't let others play theirs (protected AAC). There is no reason for this apart from to give themselves an unfair advantage!
I would love to see Apple have to open up the iTunes format for other players. I think it would be rather amusing actually.
Basically, MS got into trouble because it bundled IE with Windows and made IE and Windows work together in such a way that Windows was basically unusable without IE.
Now Apple is bundling iTunes with the iPod and using pretty hardcore integration so that they are essentially useless without each other, at the least, severely crippled.
I don't think anyone can argue that it would not be amazingly simple for iPod to play WMA files. I have nothing against WMA files. I would much rather see everyone using mp3 but that's not happening.
Before you label me anti-Apple... I own an iPod and a MacBook Pro. But you know what? I don't buy music from iTunes. I put my money where my mouth is.
I would rather fund the Russian Mafia than the RIAA.
So, some non ipod folks can't download and install AAC files big woopdeedoo. I have been unable to download and install files and even browse websites because of Microsoft's strong arm tactics for years. I am a realtor who had to buy a PC to view a darn MLS website because MarketLinx blatantly locks out MacUsers they even tried to lock me out if I was using Virtual PC. There are hundreds of companies like this who sleep with Microsoft and have a locked door policy. Just because you can't figure out how to get itunes DRMed files onto your Sansa or Zune you have to go and sue Apple. Even the government won't allow you to view websites on a mac and that is supposed to be public. Itunes is a private store/club and they can do whatever they want. But if you think because you pay a couple bucks to download a song they you should be able to get it onto your MobiBlue I don't think so. Ask the tens of thousands of Realtors who would like to use the MLS on their Macs and can't. Now that is a lawsuit not this crap.
So much FUD in this thread:
Thomas Traubman writes that iTunes treats unprotected content as DRM'd. It does not.
nightryder21 challenges people to take a song purchased from the iTunes music store and play it elsewhere. Not too hard. Burn to CD. Plays on any CD player in the world. Rip lossessly to format of choice. Plays on any other player in the world without losing (much) quality.
mreport says that the iPod should play "nice" with formats like Zune, but this point might be more convincing if Zune actually played Microsoft's own "plays-for-sure" DRM'd files. He/she should realize that Zune is Microsoft's effort to create a closed ecosystem of its own. By the way, AAC is *not* an Apple-created standard. With so many people having built their music libraries on iTunes using AAC encoding, Microsoft would be foolish to not try to make it easy for these people to play their music on the Zune without converting. True, the iPod doesn't play WMA, but iTunes can convert any non-protected WMA file.
treetrunk writes that Apple is disallowing other manufacturers from selling music for the iPod. Please alert the number two seller of music downloads, eMusic.com, which has sold over 100 million tunes, that their unprotected mp3 files can't play on the iPod! To be clear, my point is that there is a very simple solution. If the major labels allowed their music to be sold without DRM, like that on eMusic, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Individual companies like Microsoft and Apple naturally want their own flavor of DRM to become the standard, but the record industry could do away with the problem easily.
"treetrunk writes that Apple is disallowing other manufacturers from selling music for the iPod"
No, he writes that Apple is disallowing other manufacturers from selling music DIRECTLY to the ipod. Which they are - it only works (properly) with iTunes, and the only protected content it can play comes from the iTunes store.
AAC is not Apples format. Fairplay is Apples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
Seems to me that wma is a "proprietary" format
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Audio
Oh and can someone tell me what other online music store allows you to burn audio cds?
@ Thomas Trautman
"and treats even the unprotected content as if it is DRM'd"
In what way does iTunes do *anything* like this at all?
Marian, you're obviously not the best at reading, so I'll try to be as clear as possible.
>1. Apple doesn't have to pay Microsoft for Janus DRM licensing fees if it doesn't want to!!! There's no law that forces companies to pay licensing fees to competition!!!
2. Any store can sell music for an iPod. But not using Janus DRM (WMA). See www.emusic.com (very legal online music store)
1. Interesting use of exclamation marks. But there are two ways of selling music directly to the iPod!!! The other would be allowing other stores to sell using Fairplay. Something VirginMega tried to do 3 years ago, but Apple wouldn't let them, and Real (somewhat backhandedly) did with Harmony, which again Apple wouldn't allow.
2. OBVIOUSLY anyone can sell unprotected files and they'll play on anything. But not if you want to sell anything from major labels! The only way to do that is with DRM, the only DRM the iPod supports is Fairplay, and they won't let anyone else sell music with it! How is this not anticompetitive?
>Again, Apple doesn't have to license technology from Microsoft if they don't want to!!! For your information, even WMA without DRM is a technology that requires licensing.
I didn't say they "had to", and mentioned it only as one of the "routes" another company could take to sell to the iPod. Which again, for whatever reason, is closed off. While it might seem reasonable to say "they don't have to" to this on it's own, when they're effectively blocking every other route of entry (short of unprotected mp3 as dealt with above) it does become an issue.
>For your information, AAC wasn't invented by Apple. And more, Fairplay DRM technology is as closed as Microsoft's Janus DRM technology. Meaning that it is proprietary technology, licenseable to whoever is willing to pay the license fee. Motorola is one example!
I didn't claim AAC was invented by Apple. I was talking specifically about (exact words) "files from the iTunes music store". That means Fairplay protected AAC, which Apple did invent and hold the license to. Which clearly given the Virgin/Real examples above does NOT go to "whoever is willing to pay the license fee".
As for Motorola- actually, no, it works the other way around. See their press release:
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail.jsp?globalObjectId=4505_3838_23
"Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard music application on all their mass-market music phones"
In other words, Apple made the software, Fairplay stays with them, and Motorola only have a license to use the software as a whole, just like anyone else who uses iTunes.
>More, if you buy music from iTunes and you decide you want to use Creative Zen player, you simply burn your music and rip it again in the unprotected format of your wish. Even more, when you rip music from CDs using iTunes, the program doesn't add any DRM protection to your files.
Who's more monopolistic? Apple, Microsoft or Sony?
Um, yeah, isn't that what I said?
"Who's worse" is a different debate, we're talking about Apple.
>Exist what? CDs? MP3s?
Immediately preceding that sentence were the words "these restrictions", referring back to the previous paragraph and main subject of my post. I should have thought it was obvious that this is what "they" then referrs to.
>1. Interesting use of exclamation marks. But there are two ways of selling music directly to the iPod!!!
>The other would be allowing other stores to sell using Fairplay. Something VirginMega tried to do 3 years ago,
>but Apple wouldn't let them, and Real (somewhat backhandedly) did with Harmony, which again Apple wouldn't allow.
I don't know VirginMega's story, but I know Harmony's story. They reverse engineered the iPod and they build their own hacking technology to put their music on the device with DRM. Everything went great till the next firmware. Then they realised how stupid is to market a solution that is based on hacking (and not on standard interfaces between iTunes and iPod) and they willingly gave up.
What means "sell music directly"? In case you didn't find out yet, half of the Apple's device resides on the PC/Mac: the iTunes application. That's by design. How exactly would want Apple let others to sell music directly for the iPod? Provide them an API? What would be the marketing advantage for them to do that?
>2. OBVIOUSLY anyone can sell unprotected files and they'll play on anything.
You're clueless as usual. Tell that to Sony, which about 2-3 years ago sold a device that only played only ATRAC! They discarded this wonderful business decision only after they realised nobody buys their player.
> But not if you want to sell anything from major labels! The only way to do that is with DRM,
> the only DRM the iPod supports is Fairplay, and they won't let anyone else sell
> music with it! How is this not anticompetitive?
So you blame Apple for major labels' business decisions!!!
They won't let? What about Motorola?
How is this anticompetitive? Do you have any clue what anticompetitive means? Especially in the legal sense!
>I didn't say they "had to", and mentioned it only as one of the "routes" another company
>could take to sell to the iPod. Which again, for whatever reason, is closed off. While it
>might seem reasonable to say "they don't have to" to this on it's own, when they're
>effectively blocking every other route of entry (short of unprotected mp3 as dealt with
>above) it does become an issue.
The route is very simple: take eMusic.com business model!!!
Apple is not happy supporting others to sell music for the iPod for the very reason Microsoft gave up PlayForSure with Zune. Apple doesn't want to be blamed for Yahoo's or Napster's crappy store.
>"Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player, which Motorola will make the standard
> music application on all their mass-market music phones"
Oh, so one could license Apple's technology, but not only the bits they like! Veeery "anticompetitive"...
> "Who's more monopolistic? Apple, Microsoft or Sony?"
> Um, yeah, isn't that what I said? "Who's worse" is a
> different debate, we're talking about Apple.
When you accuse somebody to have anticompetitive practices, this debate becomes very relevant!
treetrunk,
Basically your argument boils down to this: Apple is at fault because 1) the major labels refuse to sell music downloads without DRM; 2) and Apple chooses to maintain a proprietary DRM. Note that taking care of #1 completely eliminates #2.
Nevermind that the iPod is compatible with the top two music download services in the United States, plus an array of small outfits that sell indepenent label music.
Second, Apple does not force anyone to use iTMS as the only source for buying music. As more than one study has shown, the average iPod owner has only 20 some songs on their iPod that have been purchased from the iTMS. The vast majority of music is coming from other sources, such as CDs. For the typical person, then, burning their iTMS music to CD and ripping it back into a DRM-free format is not such a big deal.
I cannot blame Apple for taking a proprietary approach to DRM. It is working. Contrast that with Microsoft's not-so-good experience with "PlaysForSure." Coordination across all the different makers of players, online music services, and Microsoft has been complicated. Different songs are subject to different rules as to what can be done with them. There is a reason the Zune is a closed system like the iPod (i.e. it is not a PlaysForSure device nor is music from the Zune Marketplace compatible with other devices): control over all the components allows for a more seamless and consistent experience.
The minute Apple licenses Fairplay to a music download service or to manufacturers of other mp3 players, it assumes some responsbility for making sure that it works. Everything suddenly becomes more complex and error-prone. The minute Apple pays Microsoft to make the iPod a "PlaysForSure" device, it loses control over how well the iPod works.
The best alternative is getting record labels to recognize that the eMusic approach is a good one. The fact that eMusic is getting more and more artists to participate is very promising. I find the selection on eMusic a bit limited at present, but there is plenty of good stuff there. As I am sure you know, Yahoo! has been trying to encourage the sale of DRM-less music as well.
Ultimately, I think we will get to a point where music is cross-compatible across all devices. I just don't think it's fair to single-out Apple as a monopolist. All the players in this business can share in the blame, including the major labels and Microsoft.
Thrudheim,
I'd say it was more:
1) the major labels refuse to sell music downloads without DRM
2) Apple chooses to maintain a proprietary DRM
3) they don't allow anyone else to sell music with this DRM
4) they don't support anyone else's DRM on the iPod
=> therefore Apple creates a monopoly where it is the only company which can sell the majority of (ie, major label) music downloads to the iPod. Furthermore:
5) they don't allow anyone else to play music with this DRM (yes, even Motorola, who are only allowed to use a complete mini-iTunes created by Apple)
=> therefore Apple reinforce this monopoly by not allowing other players to work with music from the iTMS, and to some extent "lock users in".
With this in mind it is hardly surprising that the iPod's 70%+ market share gives them an 80%+ share in music downloads. Or is it vice-versa?
Anyway, I agree that DRM-free music would be a much easier ideal, but am not overly optimistic of it happening. Of course Apple may not be the only ones to blame, but they are by far the major player, which just like Microsoft's domination of the OS market makes even something as trivial as the default web browser (without any restriction on change) a major blow to the competition.
Marian,
Yes, as I said Harmony was a backhanded approach. VirginMega wasn't, they just wanted to license Fairplay to sell to iPod users, and Apple wouldn't allow it. So you were wrong when you said they'd license it to anyone who paid them; they haven't licensed it to anyone.
By "sell music directly" I mean without conversion. One can download music from another store, burn it to CD, rip it again, and THEN use it on an iPod, but the only place one can legally download music from major labels without then going through this process is the iTunes store.
Obviously I didn't mean "anything" literally, you dolt. Is "virtually anything" better?
As I've explained several times the decision is part Apple's. My "how is this not anticompetitive" statement was intended as a rhetorical question as to me the previous sentence makes it absolutely clear that this is the case. I can't think of a simpler way of putting it, sorry.
How can you respond to a paragraph containing the phrase "short of unprotected mp3 as dealt with above" with "take eMusic.com business model!!!" (essentially, "use mp3s")? As I already said, you can't do that if you want to sell the vast majority of music.
Um, what? You said Motorola were licensed to use Fairplay. They aren't- nobody is except Apple.
Anyway, this will be my last response to you as I find your style of debate quite childish and tiresome. I've said all I have to say.
Quote from an old discussion about VirginMega demands:
"Apple is throwing a really great party, and everyone on the block wants to get in and join the fun. Real is the bratty kid no one wants around who's trying to hop over the fence at the back of the yard, and Virgin is the angry neighbor who's on the phone to the police about the noise while trying to make eye contact with the two girls who just arrived at the party with a case of beer."
"so - why aren't they protesting the fact that WMA is a closed system and is tied to Windows and requires a microsoft license to play properly, while AAC is open source and you can get any number of free and opensource players for AAC?
dumbass French people. Never underestimate the stupidity of a people that should, by all rights, be speaking German."
Obviously you're French then? There's a difference between the open source AAC and apple's DRM-ridden AAC. Bet you voted to rename French fries to 'freedom fries'. Ha ha ha.